In re Brian

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Shacarla CC.

    249 A.D.2d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    While respondent denied any direct participation in the incident, we note that Family Court serves as the trier of fact and its credibility determinations are to be accorded great weight (see, Matter of Robert R., 238 A.D.2d 426; Matter of Gaylord II., 106 A.D.2d 823, 824-825). Conferring the appropriate deference to Family Court's resolution of the conflicting testimony and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner (see, id.), we are satisfied that respondent's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 160.10; Matter of Charmaine J., 236 A.D.2d 474; Matter of Jamal M., supra; see generally, Matter of Brian D., 237 A.D.2d 355; Matter of Robert L., 233 A.D.2d 238). Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur.

  2. Matter of Alexander W

    249 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

    Also unavailing is the appellant's contention that the showup procedure was improper. The complainant's identification of the appellant was within seven minutes of the incident and within one block of the crime scene; therefore, the showup procedure was within acceptable bounds ( see, Matter of Brian D., 237 A.D.2d 355). The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, Family Ct. Act § 1118 Fam. Ct. Act; CPLR 5501) or do not warrant reversal.

  3. Matter of David B

    244 A.D.2d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the showup identification procedure was not unduly suggestive given that it took place within 40 minutes after the incident and within approximately 200 feet of the crime scene ( see, Matter of Brian D., 237 A.D.2d 355). That the appellant was accompanied by the police when the complainant viewed him does not render the showup identification suggestive ( see, Matter of Sharrod J., 205 A.D.2d 628; see also, People v. Rosa, 231 A.D.2d 534; People v Johnson, 220 A.D.2d 775; People v. Bitz, 209 A.D.2d 709). Upon the unequivocal identification of the appellant by the complainant, the police had probable cause to arrest him ( see, People v Evans, 237 A.D.2d 458). The finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

  4. Matter of Roderick J

    243 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    The appellant's contention that the showup procedure was improper is without merit. Considering the complainant's identification of the appellant not more than an hour after the incident and within one and one-half blocks from the crime scene, the showup procedure was within acceptable boundaries ( see, People v. Brian D., 237 A.D.2d 355; People v. Thompson, 215 A.D.2d 604). However, the counts of robbery in the third degree and petit larceny are lesser-included offenses of the greater count of robbery in the second degree, and are dismissed ( see, Matter of Tonia B., 239 A.D.2d 572; matter of Shaneeka M., 238 A.D.2d 594; Matter of Charmaine J., 236 A.D.2d 474; matter of Jamal M., 187 A.D.2d 654).